Prosecutors filed papers yesterday arguing for a lengthy sentence (PDF) for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, one that would be "substantially above the mandatory minimum," which is 20 years. They cite sentencing guidelines that point to life imprisonment as the recommended sentence.

"Ulbricht profited greatly from his operation of Silk Road, ultimately amassing millions of dollars in commissions," government lawyers wrote in the filings. "He was willing to use violence to protect his enterprise, as evidenced by his solicitation of multiple murders for hire in attempts to eliminate perceived threats. At no point has he acknowledged full responsibility or shown true remorse for his actions."

The Silk Road dramatically lowered barriers to drug dealing, prosecutors posit, and Ulbricht should be held responsible for the overdoses, addictions, and "other foreseeable repercussions" of the drugs sold on the site.

"[P]raising Silk Road for including 'harm reduction measures' is akin to applauding
a heroin dealer for handing out a clean needle with every dime bag: the point is that he has no business dealing drugs in the first place," they write.

A jury convicted Ulbricht in February on counts related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and computer hacking. The government's arguments in favor of a harsh punishment, filed yesterday, come just after Ulbricht and his family and friends filed dozens of letters pleading for leniency.

Silk Road deaths

In the new filing, the government details for the first time the drug-related deaths that it says are directly linked to Silk Road.

That includes the death of Bryan, a 25-year-old Boston man whose sister submitted a letter (PDF) to the court. Bryan "wasn't making good decisions, but he most likely had the sense to not go out seeking drug dealers in Boston's dark alleys," she wrote. "Once he discovered the Silk Road one night, his mind was made up—he was ordering heroin and it was as simple as a few clicks of a mouse, and it would arrive on his doorstep within just a few days.... If Ross Ulbricht were to receive the harshest sentence allowed by the law, perhaps it may make some of these other 'entrepreneurs' realize the true nature of these crimes."

Jacob B. was a 22-year-old Australian man who didn't die of an overdose but had pneumonia symptoms that were aggravated by his use of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. His mother wrote (PDF):

I was often fearful that a stranger would knock on my door seeking money that Jake owed or looking for drugs. I was at times fearful for my safety. As it turns out, I should have been more fearful of the Internet. The Internet makes it too easy. Silk Road made buying and selling drugs safe. Buying drugs over the Internet eliminated the risk... the risk of being robbed or physically hurt.

Jake never needed to leave the comfort of his home. My home. The home I had created as a safe place. Drugs are not tolerated. I find, I flush.... Then Silk Road walked in. Uninvited. Providing a platform that [preys] on the weak and vulnerable. A platform to bring illegal activities into my home. It is not ok. In fact, it is not fair. My loss will always be greater than yours.

Other letters come from the parents of a 16-year-old named Preston, who fell from a second-story balcony in Perth, Australia after taking doses of the drug 25i-NBOMe, also called "N-bomb," made to mimic LSD. Preston died from those injuries. In a letter (PDF) to the court, his father says he first heard about Silk Road when one of Preston's friends told him the origin of the drugs.

"I was wondering what suburb Silk Road was in," wrote Preston's father. "I was then told that Silk Road was a website that you can buy drugs from. Call me naive but I had no idea that this was possible."

Later, his father reflected on Silk Road. "I could not believe that a website could sell drugs and not be closed down," he wrote. "To my disbelief it was true, the site could not be closed down due to some very advance [sic] software... The more I considered it the more I blamed this Silk Road site. The site was responsible for my son's death... I have campaigned vigorously in Australia against this site and finding out about the arrest of the director of the Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht brought many tears... if Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us and for this reason I will continue to campaign against these Evil web sites."

230 Reader Comments

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

More horseshit from the US Government. You running a website caused someone to take drugs and they died. People just are not falling for this BS anymore in the droves that the government depends on.

Justice is surely blind since the US Government has been responsible for thousands of innocents killed by drones and other military attacks by the US military without a Declaration of War since WWII and not a single Commander-in-Chief is facing a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

The Drug war has failed and people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions (i.e. dying from taking illicit drugs).

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

I agree. The son is 100% responsible for his own actions.

That doesn't mean Ulbiricht should get off easy. Imagine if every criminal had everyone they knew write letters saying how wonderful they were and how they should all receive the minimum sentence..

More horseshit from the US Government. You running a website caused someone to take drugs and they died. People just are not falling for this BS anymore in the droves that the government depends on.

Justice is surely blind since the US Government has been responsible for thousands of innocents killed by drones and other military attacks by the US military without a Declaration of War since WWII and not a single Commander-in-Chief is facing a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

The Drug war has failed and people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions (i.e. dying from taking illicit drugs).

The people that die can't take responsibility. They're dead. We can rightfully blame it on them, which is perhaps what you meant to say.

The presidents actions against other countries have absolutely nothing to do with this case. They're unrelated, and it was silly of you to even bring them up.

While I'm not a Silk Road fan, those are some truly ridiculous claims being made. "...Then Silk Road walked in. Uninvited..."

Right, so the website popped up on his computer without him even looking for it. Riiiiiightttttttttttttt.

Also, the juxtaposition of the prosecutor pressing for extra time regarding overdoses, addictions, and "other foreseeable repercussions", yet ridiculing any mention of "harm reduction" is just annoying.

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

It is certainly mainly his fault but Silk Road has some level of copability. One of it's core purposes was to sell drugs that are highly restricted.

While there can be arguments made for drugs like weed that it should be moved to prescribed or age based over the counter style controls. There are plenty of drugs that should only ever be used under strict supervision due to side effects or probability of addiction.

The Drug war has failed and people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions

Like say, setting up an illegal drug trafficking web site, and ordering hits on people who might sell you out, or aren't paying their bills? Or is this a selective personal responsibility that we're talking here?

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

It is certainly mainly his fault but Silk Road has some level of capability. One of I t's core purposes was to sell drugs that are highly restricted.

While there can be arguments made for drugs like weed that it should be moved to prescribed or age based over the counter style controls. There are plenty of drugs that should only ever be used under strict supervision due to side effects or probability of addiction.

That's a ridiculous argument. Silk Road has no culpability for the deaths caused by using it's products, no more than The Kitchen Store has culpability if one of their customers buys a knife and then uses it to commit suicide later.

Ulbricht may not be responsible for their deaths, but he did several illegal things: 1) running a service that provided drugs and 2) using violence and murder to protect his service.

Silk Road made buying and selling drugs safe. Buying drugs over the Internet eliminated the risk... the risk of being robbed or physically hurt.

This is... bad?

I've luckily never had first hand experience with addiction, but I'm led to believe that addicts will seek to secure drugs/booze/whatever in any means possible - so a safer way to do that is... bad?

Ninja edit: I'm not meaning to say all drug users are addicts.

Addicts generally seek to secure the money to buy drugs any way possible. Silk Road would be a safer way to use the money for the drug user, but the way of obtaining the money would still have been the same: IE, often Not Good.

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

I agree with the sentiment, but you have to concede that there is some blame to go around for the guy who makes it easy to accidentally kill yourself. Its the same as if someone made it easy for any teen to get their hands on high explosives. They play and have an accident, and there's no fault for the guy who took down the barrier to the hazard?

Silk Road made buying and selling drugs safe. Buying drugs over the Internet eliminated the risk... the risk of being robbed or physically hurt.

This is... bad?

I've luckily never had first hand experience with addiction, but I'm led to believe that addicts will seek to secure drugs/booze/whatever in any means possible - so a safer way to do that is... bad?

Ninja edit: I'm not meaning to say all drug users are addicts.

Selling drugs is illegal. Doing it in a safer way doesn't make it less legal. Did you read the article? The prosecutors already pointed that out.

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we assume that someone is going to purchase drugs, isn't it preferable that the transaction is executed safely, via the internet and mail, instead of in a back alley with great potential for violent outcomes?

Rob Newhouse: Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right... Why do you ask, anyway?

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

What's safe about ingesting an unknown substance you bought over the Internet from an unknown individual? Perhaps the transaction itself is safer, but I might be inclined to trust the substance less since I hadn't seen or been around anyone else that had ingested that same product.

Drugs being unsafe is mostly the fault of them being illegal. It'd all be safer it they were legalized, with more sales being dissociated from crime, and the production having some kind of regulation protecting quality and safety.

"He was willing to use violence to protect his enterprise, as evidenced by his solicitation of multiple murders for hire in attempts to eliminate perceived threats. At no point has he acknowledged full responsibility or shown true remorse for his actions."

OK, somebody law-knowledgable: since he wasn't charged or found guilty of hiring assassins to kill people, is the prosecution really allowed to bring that up as a reason for give him harsh sentence? Has he pleaded guilty to doing that?

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

It is certainly mainly his fault but Silk Road has some level of capability. One of I t's core purposes was to sell drugs that are highly restricted.

While there can be arguments made for drugs like weed that it should be moved to prescribed or age based over the counter style controls. There are plenty of drugs that should only ever be used under strict supervision due to side effects or probability of addiction.

That's a ridiculous argument. Silk Road has no culpability for the deaths caused by using it's products, no more than The Kitchen Store has culpability if one of their customers buys a knife and then uses it to commit suicide later.

That's a silly argument. The kid didn't commit suicide, he had an accident while using a substance that is intentionally kept out of peoples reach and not sold in any legitimate store. Its illegal to buy drugs in part because people *don't* foresee these consequences. My analogy to explosives is a better example. People love playing with them and never think they're the ones who will get hurt. If your kid blows off his hand because his uncle gave him some explosives, you're not going to blame the uncle even a little?

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

What's safe about ingesting an unknown substance you bought over the Internet from an unknown individual? Perhaps the transaction itself is safer, but I might be inclined to trust the substance less since I hadn't seen or been around anyone else that had ingested that same product.

Drugs being unsafe is mostly the fault of them being illegal. It'd all be safer it they were legalized, with more sales being dissociated from crime, and the production having some kind of regulation protecting quality and safety.

What's safe about ingesting an unknown substance you bought on a street corner from an unknown individual?

I hate the concept of an unusually harsh sentence for the purpose of deterring others. This guy should be punished for his own actions, and it's appalling for the US Attorney to seek to punish him for potential future crimes that might be committed by others.

Aside from the blatant unfairness of the whole "deterrence" idea, I'm not convinced such a thing exists. IMO people who are not criminals don't commit crimes because it's not in their nature, not because of fear of prosecution. The most serious crime I commit is speeding, and I'm not even remotely deterred by the fact that I see people outside my office window getting tickets almost daily. On the other hand, I see people getting relatively light sentences for robbing convenience stores, and that's not something I'd even consider, despite the fact that those who do it don't get sentences designed to deter me.

Silk Road made buying and selling drugs safe. Buying drugs over the Internet eliminated the risk... the risk of being robbed or physically hurt.

This is... bad?

I've luckily never had first hand experience with addiction, but I'm led to believe that addicts will seek to secure drugs/booze/whatever in any means possible - so a safer way to do that is... bad?

Ninja edit: I'm not meaning to say all drug users are addicts.

Selling drugs is illegal. Doing it in a safer way doesn't make it less legal. Did you read the article? The prosecutors already pointed that out.

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we assume that someone is going to purchase drugs, isn't it preferable that the transaction is executed safely, via the internet and mail, instead of in a back alley with great potential for violent outcomes?

Let's not assume anyone is going to purchase drugs. Because it is illegal. And dangerous.

Quite honestly, if you choose to continue doing drugs, you should expect the full consequences. So that means dangerous back alleys, possibility of OD or falling off a building or contracting HIV or getting arrested.

I think that's a very naive assumption. The argument made in the court letter is not that "hey getting drugs was easy and because of that ease, my kid started using drugs that he would not have otherwise" - reading between the lines, the subject of the letter was a user before Silk Road; as such, changing the assumption doesn't work. The assumption should be that, absent intervention (which is unaffected by the presence of Silk Road, to my knowledge), the person would have continued buying drugs. So again, why would the mother prefer that her child place himself at greater risk?

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

It is certainly mainly his fault but Silk Road has some level of capability. One of I t's core purposes was to sell drugs that are highly restricted.

While there can be arguments made for drugs like weed that it should be moved to prescribed or age based over the counter style controls. There are plenty of drugs that should only ever be used under strict supervision due to side effects or probability of addiction.

That's a ridiculous argument. Silk Road has no culpability for the deaths caused by using it's products, no more than The Kitchen Store has culpability if one of their customers buys a knife and then uses it to commit suicide later.

That's a silly argument. The kid didn't commit suicide, he had an accident while using a substance that is intentionally kept out of peoples reach and not sold in any legitimate store.

You've missed the point: dangerous items such as guns, drugs, explosives, kitchen knives, cigarettes, gasoline, etc all have a personal responsibility associated with them. The people that provide dangerous items have no obligation to see that you use them safely, because that is your personal responsibility.

The only responsibility a provider has is to make sure that things that should normally be considered safe don't have dangerous defects. Like, laptops shouldn't catch on fire spontaneously.

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

What's safe about ingesting an unknown substance you bought over the Internet from an unknown individual? Perhaps the transaction itself is safer, but I might be inclined to trust the substance less since I hadn't seen or been around anyone else that had ingested that same product.

Some folks would argue that the reviews apparently provided by users served as a way to ensure the safety of what was sold. Personally I find that to be a crock. Not only do sites like Amazon deal with bogus reviews on a daily basis, but the very nature of illegal drugs makes reviews a lot less reliable. Even if a dealer has a decent reputation there's absolutely no guarantee that future drugs from that dealer will be the same quality. Drugs are routinely cut with all sorts of other chemicals, and a dealers source may change at any time.

I hate the concept of an unusually harsh sentence for the purpose of deterring others. This guy should be punished for his own actions, and it's appalling for the US Attorney to seek to punish him for potential future crimes that might be committed by others.

Aside from the blatant unfairness of the whole "deterrence" idea, I'm not convinced such a thing exists. IMO people who are not criminals don't commit crimes because it's not in their nature, not because of fear of prosecution. The most serious crime I commit is speeding, and I'm not even remotely deterred by the fact that I see people outside my office window getting tickets almost daily. On the other hand, I see people getting relatively light sentences for robbing convenience stores, and that's not something I'd even consider, despite the fact that those who do it don't get sentences designed to deter me.

Set the deterrence argument aside: this guy did illegal things and showed no remorse. He should receive a harsh sentence based on that alone.

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

It is certainly mainly his fault but Silk Road has some level of capability. One of I t's core purposes was to sell drugs that are highly restricted.

While there can be arguments made for drugs like weed that it should be moved to prescribed or age based over the counter style controls. There are plenty of drugs that should only ever be used under strict supervision due to side effects or probability of addiction.

That's a ridiculous argument. Silk Road has no culpability for the deaths caused by using it's products, no more than The Kitchen Store has culpability if one of their customers buys a knife and then uses it to commit suicide later.

That's a silly argument. The kid didn't commit suicide, he had an accident while using a substance that is intentionally kept out of peoples reach and not sold in any legitimate store.

You've missed the point: dangerous items such as guns, drugs, explosives, kitchen knives, cigarettes, gasoline, etc all have a personal responsibility associated with them. The people that provide dangerous items have no obligation to see that you use them safely, because that is your personal responsibility.

The only responsibility a provider has is to make sure that things that should normally be considered safe don't have dangerous defects. Like, laptops shouldn't catch on fire spontaneously.

This is just false. The people selling explosives CANT SELL YOU EXPLOSIVES unless you're licensed to handle them. Remember, we are talking about controlled substances. If someone helps you break that barrier, then they are certainly sharing the blame for whatever misdeed you do with them.

The Drug war has failed and people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions

Like say, setting up an illegal drug trafficking web site, and ordering hits on people who might sell you out, or aren't paying their bills? Or is this a selective personal responsibility that we're talking here?

Yup. He is a thug that tried to have at least three people offed. While the prosecutor's arguments are dumb, Ulbricht doesn't need leniency.

people need to take personal responsibility for their own actions (i.e. breaking the law).

Here, I took your comment and applied it to Ross Ulbricht. Whether or not the war on drugs is right/wrong his actions are a direct violation of the laws of almost every country. As such he's getting what he deserves.

Drugs being unsafe is mostly the fault of them being illegal. It'd all be safer it they were legalized, with more sales being dissociated from crime, and the production having some kind of regulation protecting quality and safety.

I'd argue that we already have the last part of your statement. The FDA has regulations that protect the quality and safety of foods and drugs. Anything that does not meet the quality and safety (and technically, efficacy, too) is not legal...

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

I agree. The son is 100% responsible for his own actions.

That doesn't mean Ulbiricht should get off easy. Imagine if every criminal had everyone they knew write letters saying how wonderful they were and how they should all receive the minimum sentence..

"If Silk Road did not exist then Preston would still be with us"... give me a break. I understand the desire to find someone to blame, but the only person to blame for his son's death is his son. He made the choice to use drugs and had an accident as a result. It's no more the fault of Silk Road than it is the fault of the building he fell from.

Trying to pin blame on those who are not responsible is not cool.

I agree. The son is 100% responsible for his own actions.

That doesn't mean Ulbiricht should get off easy. Imagine if every criminal had everyone they knew write letters saying how wonderful they were and how they should all receive the minimum sentence..

Oh, indeed I'm not saying Ulbricht shouldn't be sentenced (as much as I dislike our country's stance on drugs, he pretty clearly broke the laws). I just think trying to claim he's somehow responsible for some kid's accidental death while high is bullshit. Hold the guy responsible for things he did, not for things someone else did.

Silk Road made buying and selling drugs safe. Buying drugs over the Internet eliminated the risk... the risk of being robbed or physically hurt.

This is... bad?

I've luckily never had first hand experience with addiction, but I'm led to believe that addicts will seek to secure drugs/booze/whatever in any means possible - so a safer way to do that is... bad?

Ninja edit: I'm not meaning to say all drug users are addicts.

Selling drugs is illegal. Doing it in a safer way doesn't make it less legal. Did you read the article? The prosecutors already pointed that out.

Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure how I feel about what Ulbricht's sentence should look like, but I really don't understand the mother of a customer being upset that something her child did was safer than the alternative.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we assume that someone is going to purchase drugs, isn't it preferable that the transaction is executed safely, via the internet and mail, instead of in a back alley with great potential for violent outcomes?

Let's not assume anyone is going to purchase drugs. Because it is illegal. And dangerous.

Quite honestly, if you choose to continue doing drugs, you should expect the full consequences. So that means dangerous back alleys, possibility of OD or falling off a building or contracting HIV or getting arrested.

I think that's a very naive assumption. The argument made in the court letter is not that "hey getting drugs was easy and because of that ease, my kid started using drugs that he would not have otherwise" - reading between the lines, the subject of the letter was a user before Silk Road; as such, changing the assumption doesn't work. The assumption should be that, absent intervention (which is unaffected by the presence of Silk Road, to my knowledge), the person would have continued buying drugs. So again, why would the mother prefer that her child place himself at greater risk?

That was what the father of a victim stated. Which is understandable: parents often don't want to accept that their children did something stupid, and they don't want to accept that they raised their kids that way.

Yeah, the government used this parent's grief to further their point, but that shouldn't detract from the actual sentiment that Ross deserves a tough punishment, just as anyone else who committed those same crimes does.